Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 5 years 16 weeks
|4 years 31 weeks ago||Don't stop believin'||
Keep it simple. Everybody loves that song. a la (at 0:40)
|4 years 40 weeks ago||Generally right, but slightly wrong on the facts...||
Brian's generally right that the practice of pulling kids' scholarships in a new coaching regime is ethically dubious.
However, these player departures don't yet prove that UK is committing this practice - Cal will probably force his own hand in the near future because of the size of his incoming class, but I know that at least two of these players are 'special cases' where they aren't being booted in quite the way Brian characterizes.
AJ Stewart quit the team last year for a brief time in the middle of the season and was only allowed back on after a team vote. If one of UM's role players quit the team in the middle of a season, was dealt with during the season, and then was politely given a list of options that didn't include returning in the off-season, I think many UM fans would probably be okay with that.
Jared Carter is merely not applying for a 5th year of eligibility from a medical situation from his junior season. This seemed to be the plan all along as he went through Senior Day last year at Rupp when Gillispie was still the coach.
Donald Williams is the only suspect departure. Frankly, I know very little about his case, only that he certainly wasn't on the same talent level as Cal's incoming class. Perhaps this a 'dirty cut', but given that the others in this round of departures are special cases, it wouldn't surprise me if Williams' departure is a similar case.
All in all, I think Brian's right about the practice of cutting players - just not totally sure it's happened yet at UK, though it probably will in the very near future.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Perhaps the better question||
Perhaps the better question is "Will anyone reach AC, Braylon, Terrell-level heights under the new offense?"
I only found one 1,000 yd season by a WR under RichRod at WVU - 1,006 by Chris Henry in 2003, which seems miraculous given that it was done with only 41 receptions (and probably while drunk).
While Mathews might not be the ideal candidate, most future "#1's" will probably not have AC/Braylon numbers as long as we run the spread. If the #1 tradition is to exist at all, it will have to be awarded for intangibles or leading the team in receiving at something to the tune of 600-800 yds.
|5 years 13 weeks ago||Missed the point||
This article seems to confuse the talent argument, not clarify it.
The argument for those of us who claim that Michigan has talent (or had talent this season) isn't that our top-ranked recruiting classes necessarily translate into top on-field talent. The phenomenon of talented players never 'making it' in D1 is common to all teams, just like the phenomenon of unheralded players making a substantial impact.
Instead, the argument is that we at least have enough talent to outclass several of the teams we played this year. In several games that we lost this season, we should have won based on the fact that we outclassed the team on the other sideline by three degrees. This is not the case with OSU, ND, MSU, or even Illinois. But NWestern, Purdue, and certainly Toledo are games that we should win because there are few players on their sideline who have the talent to play at Michigan.
The mix of better-than-advertised/not-as-good-as-expected is common to all schools. Look at any major program and this is the case. Not to mention, this has been the case in the previous 40 winning seasons of UM football.
No one will contend that this team has top 25 talent, but this is definitely not a team with the type of dearth of talent that explains 9 losses in a weak conference.